While serving as a US Federal employee, I was brutally beaten in my face, head, arms and legs in an Oklahoma jail cell on July 16th. I am a black woman under the age of 30 and a plain clothes policeman followed me after asking me inappropriate personal questions. I was booked at the jail for eluding the policeman at 30 mph below the speed limit and arrested me at gun point. After I was beaten, I was left for dead and placed into a suicide chair for hours until 8 AM the following morning. I was arraigned by a judge who increased my sentence from a misdemeanor to a felony and the District Attorney continues to refuse to drop the charges.
At his town hall meeting last week, Barack Obama answered a question about California education. It seems that without reform there will be no federal bail out money except as provided in the stimulus package. Hard news story.
http://www.examiner.com/x-5067-LA-School-District-Examiner~y2009m3d22-Obama-challenges-teachers-unions-to-reform-before-any-federal-bail-out
Unemployment: Regardless of the tax breaks, housing issues and all other ideas in any proposal. If you don’t stop the unemployment and put people back to work so they actually have money to benefit from the tax breaks and housing benefits proposed and so they can start purchasing items, getting loans for homes and vehicles, investing in stock and or otherwise spending money, then regardless of the amount of the package, you will not have stimulated spending or our economy. JOBS are the foundation of stimulation.
JOBS: It is vitally important that the jobs created are created throughout the country with various skills. I assure you that those that have lost their jobs and will lose their jobs are from various locations and with various skills. So specific projects, proposed in any bill, will not suffice since they are limited in both location and skill.
How do you create Jobs?: I continuously hear everyone say, including the President, that our small businesses are the backbone of job creation and our economy. Why is that? It’s because they are all across the country and provide a variety of jobs and they borrow and spend?How do you stimulate small business?: Normally small businesses which are existing or that which wish to start up seek private funding through investement, loans and federal assistance. However due to the current economic EMERGENCY, the private sector options are no longer available. This leaves only Federal funding for small businesses. Our Federal agencies hold many applications from small businesses.: Various agencies have applications from small businesses that want to do work, some of which the government is requesting to be done. Some of which they have come up with on their own, which are called “unsolicited proposals” but which could still be of value. Some of this work is manual labor, some of this work is research and a lot of it is a variety of other opportunities.Some funds could already be available!: Many of these Federal agencies most likely already have some funds set aside for Grant funding or other funding. These agencies could pull all small business applications and Grand Total the amounts needed to fund all of them and the stimulus package could authorize additional funds, which may or may not be needed. The stimulus package and/or a Directive by the President should order these agencies to "clear their coffers". This may seem like an extreme measure, but these are extreme times.Some may argue that this will diminish private investment opportunities.: Contrarily by providing these small businesses with funding to start up or perform work, they can begin to invest and seek investors with the capital which is provided to them and/or with their success as they grow .Perhaps some of the funds being directed to the TARP packages could be redirected here.: Since the issue for our financial institutions is not neccesarily having the money available, but rather a way to move the money, our small businesses can provide for two means of helping with this issue. First they can provide the monies through creating bank accounts and/or making deposits into existing accounts. They will conduct daily business that will begin to rotate these funds and stimulate the economy.The definition of small business has already been defined.: The Government has already defined the term "small business", so there is no need to redefine it or figure out what articulates into a small business.These small businesses have already gone through the Grants.gov verification processes!: Before applying for Grants, SBIR’s and/or STTR’s each business must go through a verification process.There are already established monitoring systems set up.: Government auditing, reports and etc..are already established by each agency.Grants.gov already has bank routing numbers for each business.: As a requirement during the verification process, Grants.gov requires that a bank account already be established. The funds could be dispersed quickly and put to use quickly. Unfortunately the amounts they offer, $100,000 to $150,00 in most case are not sufficient to actually start a business. A business beginning with nothing has to have the funds needed to buy supplies, lease property, purchase equipment etc… and cover salaries for at least a year to allow the business to grow and build a customer base which can sustain them. Another source for small business interest is the Small Business Administration.It is important to provide enough funding: to allow for these businesses to start and to have enough to sustain them for at least a year, two years would be best, so that they can build a customer base to sustain themselves. Not all will succeed and it could be required that unused funds be returned if they fail. But I believe there will be many more that will succeed and some may even provide us all with some unexpected benefits.So have theses agencies, a list of Granting Agencies is on Grants.gov, pull all small business applications and provide funding. Open up more opportunities for small businesses. These small businesses are ready, willing and able to begin work and put others to work, so let them. What is the real benefit of small business?They employ, they buy, they bank, they borrow, they invest, they provide investment opportunities and they spend all across the country.: This stabilizes current businesses and allows them to hire more employees, to buy, to borrow and to spend. They all pay taxes to their states, they pay for permits from municipalities, counties and/or other forms of government, creating State and local revenue. They are perpetual, in that they continue, whereas a stimulus check to Americans may help, it does not provide a continuing of spending and rotation of capital as small businesses would while conducting daily business. They do not require any trade agreement specifications or a “Buy American” provision.Their employees buy, bank, invest, borrow and spend all across the country.: They pay State and local taxes which creates revenue for them.
How do you create Jobs?: I continuously hear everyone say, including the President, that our small businesses are the backbone of job creation and our economy. Why is that? It’s because they are all across the country and provide a variety of jobs and they borrow and spend?
How do you stimulate small business?: Normally small businesses which are existing or that which wish to start up seek private funding through investement, loans and federal assistance. However due to the current economic EMERGENCY, the private sector options are no longer available. This leaves only Federal funding for small businesses.
Our Federal agencies hold many applications from small businesses.: Various agencies have applications from small businesses that want to do work, some of which the government is requesting to be done. Some of which they have come up with on their own, which are called “unsolicited proposals” but which could still be of value. Some of this work is manual labor, some of this work is research and a lot of it is a variety of other opportunities.
Some funds could already be available!: Many of these Federal agencies most likely already have some funds set aside for Grant funding or other funding. These agencies could pull all small business applications and Grand Total the amounts needed to fund all of them and the stimulus package could authorize additional funds, which may or may not be needed. The stimulus package and/or a Directive by the President should order these agencies to "clear their coffers". This may seem like an extreme measure, but these are extreme times.
Some may argue that this will diminish private investment opportunities.: Contrarily by providing these small businesses with funding to start up or perform work, they can begin to invest and seek investors with the capital which is provided to them and/or with their success as they grow .
Perhaps some of the funds being directed to the TARP packages could be redirected here.: Since the issue for our financial institutions is not neccesarily having the money available, but rather a way to move the money, our small businesses can provide for two means of helping with this issue. First they can provide the monies through creating bank accounts and/or making deposits into existing accounts. They will conduct daily business that will begin to rotate these funds and stimulate the economy.
The definition of small business has already been defined.: The Government has already defined the term "small business", so there is no need to redefine it or figure out what articulates into a small business.
These small businesses have already gone through the Grants.gov verification processes!: Before applying for Grants, SBIR’s and/or STTR’s each business must go through a verification process.
There are already established monitoring systems set up.: Government auditing, reports and etc..are already established by each agency.
Grants.gov already has bank routing numbers for each business.: As a requirement during the verification process, Grants.gov requires that a bank account already be established. The funds could be dispersed quickly and put to use quickly.
Unfortunately the amounts they offer, $100,000 to $150,00 in most case are not sufficient to actually start a business. A business beginning with nothing has to have the funds needed to buy supplies, lease property, purchase equipment etc… and cover salaries for at least a year to allow the business to grow and build a customer base which can sustain them. Another source for small business interest is the Small Business Administration.
It is important to provide enough funding: to allow for these businesses to start and to have enough to sustain them for at least a year, two years would be best, so that they can build a customer base to sustain themselves. Not all will succeed and it could be required that unused funds be returned if they fail. But I believe there will be many more that will succeed and some may even provide us all with some unexpected benefits.
So have theses agencies, a list of Granting Agencies is on Grants.gov, pull all small business applications and provide funding. Open up more opportunities for small businesses. These small businesses are ready, willing and able to begin work and put others to work, so let them.
What is the real benefit of small business?
They employ, they buy, they bank, they borrow, they invest, they provide investment opportunities and they spend all across the country.: This stabilizes current businesses and allows them to hire more employees, to buy, to borrow and to spend. They all pay taxes to their states, they pay for permits from municipalities, counties and/or other forms of government, creating State and local revenue. They are perpetual, in that they continue, whereas a stimulus check to Americans may help, it does not provide a continuing of spending and rotation of capital as small businesses would while conducting daily business. They do not require any trade agreement specifications or a “Buy American” provision.Their employees buy, bank, invest, borrow and spend all across the country.: They pay State and local taxes which creates revenue for them.
They employ, they buy, they bank, they borrow, they invest, they provide investment opportunities and they spend all across the country.: This stabilizes current businesses and allows them to hire more employees, to buy, to borrow and to spend. They all pay taxes to their states, they pay for permits from municipalities, counties and/or other forms of government, creating State and local revenue. They are perpetual, in that they continue, whereas a stimulus check to Americans may help, it does not provide a continuing of spending and rotation of capital as small businesses would while conducting daily business. They do not require any trade agreement specifications or a “Buy American” provision.
Their employees buy, bank, invest, borrow and spend all across the country.: They pay State and local taxes which creates revenue for them.
In the end, the only real stimulation you could provide which can do what needs done, is through creating jobs all across the country with a variety of work skills. To meet that objective effectively you have to build up your small business base.
That way when all the other bills such as TARP and others can actually do some good.
Americans have a way of pulling themselves up. Give us a chance to show you how well we can do that and help us, help you, help us all.
Small Businesses, existing and new, could play a big part of stimulating our economy and progression to recovery. It should be included in conjunction with other ideas which are currently a part of the plan.
The Pickens Plan: For those who would like to become an active participant in a solution for our nations energy needs I urge you to join with T.Boone Pickens in his quest for a cleaner planet through alternative energy.
Also see Green Wave Energy: Green Wave was founded by Mark Holmes and was formulated for viable alternative energy solutions. Green Wave Energy is promoting state-of-the-art energy-saving products and services throughout the country.
Green Wave Energy understands alternative energy technology will become “main stream” when
Call 949.645.1701 for information on how Green Wave Energy can help you save the planet.
Alternative EnergySource: David Apperson
url: http://veterans.barackobama.com/page/community/tag/alternative-energy
I download the following federal budget data from the Congressional Budget Office. It clearly shows that for the last forty years the Republicans have been the party of huge federal deficits. During both the Carter era (1977 – 1980) and the Clinton era (1993 – 2000) the deficit shrank and during the Reagan era (1981 – 1988) and the Bush II era (2001 – 2008) the deficit broke all previous records.
All figures in Billions of dollars. The 2008 Budget deficit is a record $455 billion.
1968 -31
1969 -3
1970 2
1971 -10
1972 -21
1973 -20
1974 2
1975 4
1976 -35
1977 -21
1978 -32
1979 -14
1980 -9
1981 -17
1982 -43
1983 -112
1984 -143
1985 -179
1986 -211
1987 -157
1988 -126
1989 -117
1990 -120
1991 -150
1992 -186
1993 -192
1994 -144
1995 -146
1996 -93
1997 -81
1998 -38
1999 2
2000 105
2001 102
2002 -131
2003 -288
2004 -294
2005 -239
2006 -229
2007 -152
2008 -455
I think, given all the attacks democrats get for taxing people, democrats should highlight the deficits the Republicans have created for us and the debt they are leaving for our children. The Republicans have been a party of debt and deficit for the last forty years. They have shown fiscal indiscipline of the worst kind.
Dear Mr. Obama,
I doubt that this letter will ever be read by you or your staff, but I can always hope. I am a registered Republican from the state of Arizona, and I am strongly leaning toward support of you and your campaign.
The reason for my support of your campaign is not so much what you have said during your campaign, but rather what John McCain has said, specifically relating to US Taxpayers buying mortgage backed paper. I feel that this will lead to further financial meltdown and will stabilize home prices, temporarily, at unrealistic, unadjusted levels.
Home prices were due to take a correction. If you couldn’t see the train coming you must have had your head in the sand. Banks and lending institutions should have seen this train coming and applied protective measures necessary to protect themselves and their investors incase of a market correction. Rather, they were making loans that were 125% of the value of the property. This is sheer stupidity, and unfortunately we will all share in the burden of these bad decisions. But we move forward from here.
I feel that McCain’s plan rewards greed and stupidity and guarantees huge debts to future taxpayers. From what I’ve heard from you, I believe you feel the same way. But the big question is… what is the alternative to McCain’s plan?
I realize that I don’t have a grasp of the complexity of the financial engine that drives the US economy. However, I do have a simplified plan on what can be done to stabilize the housing market and at the same time allow a large number of homeowners to remain in their homes with a much smaller downside risk to taxpayers than what McCain is proposing.
It must be noted that very little investor money is entering the residential real estate market due to the unrealistic values that lenders are placing on foreclosed properties. Yet, at the same time, these lenders need to be bailed out by the federal government because they don’t have enough cash to support their day to day operations. I’m sure the lenders believe that if they don’t sell the properties they won’t have to report the losses to their shareholders, but rather can report these investments as unrealistic assets on their books. This is a deception to both current shareholders and investors considering buying equity in the company. Lenders should be required to liquidate their assets at realistic values and take the associated losses, therefore sharing in the burden of this downturn just as all Americans are doing. Liquidating these assets at reasonable prices will give these companies badly needed capital without the help of the federal government’s assistance, will trigger investors to re-enter the residential real estate market, will infuse cash into a cash strapped system, will reduce inventory, and will stabilize home prices at a more reasonable, post-corrected, price point.
Another downside to allowing lenders to hold property is that they don’t maintain the property. Properties owned by banks are left to wilt and fall into disrepair. This leads to urban blight, crime, and causes further erosion in property values.
I speak from experience. We live in Phoenix, Arizona, which was a boon town during the recent building craze. I was recently employed by a civil engineering firm that was directly involved in the development of residential property. Since the onset of the residential real estate downturn I have lost my job and am finding it tough to find another in this business climate. Nevertheless, we purchased a new home in 2006 (prior to me losing my job). At the time of purchase we did not expect home prices to continue to increase at their previous unrealistic pace, (even though I was hoping that they might). I thought that the increase in home prices would decelerate and possibly stagnate. I also thought that there might be a possibility of price retraction. We did not want to be house poor and therefore bought what we could afford. We put a good amount of capital down on the property and therefore are not upside down on our mortgage yet, but we have lost significant equity in the property. We financed the home at a fixed rate for 30 years.
However, a few of our neighbors bought property with the expectation that home prices will continue their unreasonable escalation. Buyer greed was as much a part of this foreclosure disaster as was deception in the mortgage industry, despite what McCain would have you believe.
The neighbors to our west moved here from San Diego. They rented their home in San Diego and purchased a new home in Phoenix. They put in all the bells and whistles, and had a beautiful home with beautiful landscaping and a sparkling pool in their backyard. They also paid a pretty penny for the house and put very little money down. They financed the home with a sub-prime ARM and were probably thinking they could sell the home in a couple years and make a decent profit. On top on this they took out second and third position loans on the property. When the market went south they were immediately underwater. They tried selling the property for what they put into it but there were no takers. The lender refused to work with them on a short sale. Their mortgage rates were going up and they could no longer make their mortgage payments, and since they were already underwater, they had little incentive to make them. The lender foreclosed on the property and they packed up and moved back to San Diego.
The house went up for auction on September 22nd. I kept an eye on the property with assistance from a friend of mine in the real estate industry. He told me that the house did not sell at auction because the opening bid, (by the lender), was too high. So, the property is now lender owned. The water and electricity have been turned off. The plants are dying, the pool is green and the house, I’m sure, is worth less than it was at the time that it went to auction. On top of this there is a very real threat of disease spreading due to mosquitoes breeding in the stagnant water of the pool.
The neighbor to our east moved here from New Jersey. They purchased three homes in the Phoenix area, and currently have lost two. The third will be auctioned on December 23rd. Merry Christmas! The woman has no idea what she will do or where she will live. On top of this she is going through a divorce. Talk about tough! However, they bought all three houses with very little money down and with adjustable rate mortgages. They also took seconds on the properties. If this home is not sold it will wither like the one on our west.
How can we stabilize home prices and keep most homeowners in their houses? My answer may be over simplified, but I think it’s a good solution.
The procedure goes like this…
1. Allow current owners facing foreclosure to go into foreclosure. Everyone shares the burden. People who are not underwater on their mortgages due to prudent decisions, have faced substantial losses in equity. It seems only fair that buyers that made bad decisions lose the equity that they originally had in the property.
2. Persuade lenders sell the property at today’s values and require them to give the first option to buy the property to the original owners prior to selling the property at auction. This will cause the lenders to take a loss on the property as well as allowing a great percentage of homeowners to remain in their homes. Everyone shares the burden. If the government can not persuade the lenders to sell the properties at a loss they can pressurize lenders to do so by passing legislation forcing them pay all taxes and fees associated with the properties as well as a requirement to maintain the properties, thus avoiding the urban blight often associated with bank owned properties. If they fail to follow the rules of the new legislation they can be fined. If they refuse to pay the fines the federal government can acquire the property and can sell it at auction for a fair price. All proceeds from the sale of the property will be used to pay down the tax debt realized during the bailout of the financial market. Allowing these properties to sell at “fair,” post-corrected prices will cause inventory to dry up and should stabilize the market.
3. Because many buyers will have recently faced foreclosure, (as mentioned in paragraph 1, above), they will not be able to qualify for a loan, or if they can qualify, they will be faced with irrationally high interest rates. Therefore, it will be necessary for the federal government to step in and guarantee these mortgages. This will allow for a very safe investment opportunity and will influence investors to once again invest in mortgage backed paper. It will be much less expensive for the tax payer as well due to the fact that private institutions will be funding these loans and the only time federal coffers will be opened is if a loan fails which will be much less often since these loans will be made on post-corrected property values. On top of this, if a loan does fail, the federal government can sell the property to recover the losses. For borrowers to qualify for a government guaranteed loan they will have to meet stringent underwriting requirements established by the federal government. Not everyone will qualify, but people that have faced foreclosures will not be discriminated against in the underwriting process.
The ridiculous notion that home prices need to be stabilized at current prices is a fairy tale. They may be temporarily stabilized, but market pressure, due to an excess of inventory, will cause further downward pressure and eventually a second bubble will burst causing a continued decline in home prices, eventually ending at a price point that the market will bear.
Also, off the subject of housing, and turning to the subject of job creation. I think you should emphasize a vision of the future that supports research in biotechnology. A government investment in research related to finding cures for disease could create thousands of jobs. This sector has been stymied by Bush’s efforts to stop stem cell research.
Good Luck,
You have a lot on your plate.
Sincerely,
Robert Wells
By Me, Silentboom,
The business cycle is a term used by Austrian economic theorists. They determined that the business cycle is not a natural occurrence in the free market but rather a controlled and manufactured problem at the hands of central planners. Our Federal Reserve is that central planner and was never intended to exist by the founders. They believed the markets should set interest rates dependent on the individual conditions. The Federal Reserve has the power to print money (inflate) the money supply. As this new money is added to the money supply the people close to that new money (banks, wall street, government) get to use it at full value. As time passes that added money dilutes the value of everyone's money as the money supply grows. This reduces it's purchasing power and raises prices which most affect the elderly and others on fixed incomes. This is not the only inflation that occurs though, the fractional reserve banking system creates money by the wave of a pen when loans are given out, this is also added to the money supply further devaluing the dollar and causing more people to seek loans and not save. Why save when the value of the dollar is declining and the value of real world items is increasing in relation and also due to the bidding up by the spending of the new money. It's a system that grows more and more evil as the central planners (the fed) keep the interest rate artificially low and the credit expansion grows exponentially. This is exactly what has happened. Now we are facing the correction of the inflated prices which must be done. You cannot re-inflate this bubble once it leaks. The Bailout is an attempt to re-inflate this bubble and will fail and ultimately brings the destruction of the dollar as it is abandoned by the world market. Regulation is not the answer, for the best regulation is free market competition. The more you look into it, the more you see that the lack of competition in the market which allows companies like Freddie and Fannie to rise to power is due to manipulation(lobbying and such) of the regulations which should not exist in a truly free market with honest money. Free market, Free people, even wealth distribution with small rich and poor classes and honest banks bring the most efficient, fair, and prosperous results to us.
"From now on, depressions will be scientifically created."
-- Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh Sr. , 1913
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin (1802)
THE WALL STREET CRISIS IN A NUTSHELLWritten by Brasscheck
This story is about a five minute read, but if you have any interest in what's going on in the financial markets, I think you'll find it a more useful analysis than you're likely to find anywhere else. Along with the video link at the end, you'll REALLY know what's going on, better than most people on earth, including financial news reporters.
A SHORT EXPLANATION OF HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE ARE
Today's banking crisis is the THIRD trillion dollar plus US-caused financial meltdown in the last twenty years. Each one of these crises came into being through the same basic mechanism: The fraudulent over-valuing of financial assets by Wall Street, with a "wink and a nod" (and sometimes a lot more) from the White House and Congress.
The fraudulently valued assets stimulate the economy, impart the illusion of health, and then inevitably, the fraud goes too far, and the whole house of card comes painfully crashing back to Earth.
The three trillion dollar plus frauds were:
Fraud #1: The so-called "Savings & Loan Crisis" of the late 80s
Fraud #2: The so-called "Tech Bubble" of the late 90s
Fraud #3: The so-called "Credit (Sub-prime mortgage) Crisis" of today
HOW THE SCAM WORKS
The mechanism of these frauds is simplicity itself.
You take a shaky financial asset, blow up its value, and then sell as much of it as you can.
In the "Savings & Loan Crisis," the instrument was "Junk Bonds".
In the "Tech Bubble", it was Internet Stocks.
In the "Credit Crisis", it was individual mortgages collected into pools, and then re-sold to investors.
In each case, normal, well established "bread and butter" financial principles, were consciously thrown away by Wall Street, with no hint of protest from federal regulators.
THE "SAVINGS & LOAN CRISIS" DISSECTED
Junk bonds caused the Saving & Loan crisis, which resulted in the US taking over the assets of hundreds of banks, and selling them back over time to the marketplace at fire-sale prices.
Junk bonds, which caused the "Savings & Loan Crisis", were shaky bonds that were pumped up by deliberate misrepresentation, and what I call "Staged Dealing."
Bonds get their value from two things: the amount of interest they pay, and how safe they are.
"Junk" bonds have to pay higher interest because they are less safe. Therefore, until the "Savings & Loan Crisis", savings and loan banks banks were not allowed by law to buy them and callthem assets.
Reagan/Bush changed all this, and then a group of Wall Street fraudsters used the new loophole to kick off an orgy of junk bond creation, and junk bond selling, to banks and insurancecompanies.
The crooks would deal the junk bonds back and forth amongst themselves, thereby establishing their "value", and then they'd sell them to outsiders. The bonds then became "assets" which could be borrowed against, and leveraged to buy even more bonds.
When the bonds failed, the banks failed, and in stepped the US government to "fix" the problem that it created, at a cost of at least one trillion dollars to US tax payers.
THE "TECH BUBBLE" DISSECTED
The instrument of fraud in the "Tech Bubble" was Internet stocks, "start-ups" in particular.
A stock gets its value from the underlying company's sales, its growth, and its overall prospects for the future.
Pre-tech bubble, companies used to have to prove themselves by being in existence for several years before they could be sold on major exchanges. That standard was thrown away during the tech bubble.
To pump up their values, the companies engaged in "Staged Dealing" just like the junk bond crooks.
Company #1 would "sell" 20 million dollars in banner ads to Company #2, which would in turn "sell" 20 million in banner ads to Company #1.
In fact, nobody sold anybody anything. Company #2 ran ads for Company #1 and billed it for them. Company #1 ran ads for Company #2 and billed for an equal amount.
These should have been called "media trades", not sales, but Wall Street was happy to claim them as legitimate cash sales, and then use the sales numbers to fraudulently value these companies, many of them totally worthless, in the hundreds of millions, and sometimes even the billions.
THE CREDIT (SUB-PRIME MORTGAGE) CRISIS DISSECTED
By now, you see how the scheme works. It's not complicated at all.
You take nearly worthless pieces of paper (junk bonds, stock of start-up Internet companies, etc.) and declare them to be good as gold.
Then you create as many junk bonds and Internet start-up stocks as you can, and sell them as fast as you can.
In the case of our current crisis, the instrument of fraud was so-called sub-prime mortgages.
Previously, sub-prime mortgages had very little trading value. Only people in the sub-prime industry itself dealt in them, and for good reason. They're tricky to value, and packed with financialperil.
But Wall Street changed all that. Wall Street said: "If we take LOTS of these mortgages, and groupthem into large pools, and then slice and dice the pools in various ways, we can sell the slices to banks and other investors as AAA paper."
It sounds crazy, doesn't it?
If the underlying pieces of paper are garbage, how does assembling a whole bunch of garbage into one place make it better? It doesn't, of course. This is a principle even a three year old child can understand.
But greed and the need to pump up a shaky economy for propaganda purposes, are two very strong motivators.
Banks created these mortgage pools, sold them to each other, and they, by virtue of these "Staged Sales", declared them valuable.
Do you recognize the pattern now?
If you do, then you are now smarter than all the assembled jerks who do financial reporting, because they apparently can't, or won't.
This is the THIRD trillion-dollar plus fraud driven financial meltdown in twenty years, and apparently no one in the financial news media can see how it happened.
BUT THERE'S MORE
Junk bonds were mass manufactured as fast as the crooks could invent them. Ditto for Internet stocks. But how did hundreds of billions of dollars worth of "toxic" mortgages suddenly come into being?
Why did the mortgage industry change its lending standards so radically, and so suddenly, to make their creation possible?
And why did real estate lending regulators in all 50 states (because real estate lending is a STATE-level issue, not federal) go along with it?
Here's where it gets very interesting.
The fact is, state-level lending regulators were VERY concerned about what was going on. They've been concerned for years. They not only expressed their concern clearly, they also took SERIOUS concerted legal action to stop lenders from making these bad real estate loans to their citizens.
Most of the sub-prime loans so much in the news today, were designed to screw the people who borrowed the money, and can rightly be called "predatory" loans.
Guess who stopped the states from enforcing their own time-proven real estate lending laws, and thus created the raw material that made the current "Credit Crisis" possible?
It's the trillion dollar question, and if you're a US taxpayer, you're going to pay for this fraud, so you might as well know who did it to you.
His initials are GWB. You know him well.
But perhaps more interesting, is the name of the person who single-handedly rallied state attorneys general, and then fellow governors, to fight the creation of these loans, and whoin the process became Public Enemy #1 to the Bush Administration.
His name is E Spitzer.
If you follow "silly" US political scandals, you recognized his name instantly, and FINALLY understand why he was swiftly assassinated politically, earlier this year. Had he remained, he would have been in a position to remind everyone who made the current meltdown possible. He was silenced so effectively, that no one can mention his name in connection with today's crisis, without risking ridicule, or worse.
The crisis this fraud has created is *exponentially* bigger than the S & L and Tech Bubble combined. It's not going to be resolved by a quick "patch up".
On that cheerful note, here's the big story everyone missed this year and now you'll finally know what REALLY happened and why:
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/291.html
P.S. If you find Brasscheck TV valuable, please share our e-mail and videos with friends and colleagues. That's how we grow. Thanks.
Brasscheck TV2380 California St.San Francisco, CA 94115
The Federal Reserve System is the culprit behind our current fianancial woes. The Federal Reserve is a PRIVATE CORPORATION that prints money out of thin air and then sells it at face value - plus interest - to America. It is about as "Federal" as Federal Express. Think about it. Every dollar in your pocket has been purchased on a loan from the Federal Reserve. It is not backed up by anything. It is not gold or silver, it is worthless paper. It costs just as much for the FED to print a $100 bill as it does a $5 bill, yet it costs us that face value, plus interest, to have that money for ourselves. As we work to make more money, the FED prints more money and puts it into circulation, which only decreases the value of the money we already have. Your dollar buys less and less every day, and we are forced to borrow more and more from the Federal Reserve. This system produces nothing but debt for all of us, and it must be abolished. No wonder why we are on hard times. The private bankers of the FED brought this on us. We must return to the gold standard.
"Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are the United States government's institutions.They are not government institutions. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign swindlers"-- Congressional Record 12595-12603. Louis T. McFadden, Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency (12 years) June 10, 1932
"Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders. The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and manipulates the credit of the United States"-- Sen. Barry Goldwater (Rep. AZ)
"The [Federal Reserve Act] as it stands seems to me to open the way to a vast inflation of the currency... I do not like to think that any law can be passed that will make it possible to submerge the gold standard in a flood of irredeemable paper currency."--Henry Cabot Lodge Sr., 1913
"The Federal Reserve bank buys government bonds without one penny..."-- Congressman Wright Patman, Congressional Record, Sept 30, 1941
"I have never seen more Senators express discontent with their jobs....I think the major cause is that, deep down in our hearts, we have been accomplices in doing something terrible and unforgiveable to our wonderful country. Deep down in our heart, we know that we have given our children a legacy of bankruptcy. We have defrauded our country to get ourselves elected."-- John Danforth (R-Mo)
"These 12 corporations together cover the whole country and monopolize and use for private gain every dollar of the public currency..."--Mr. Crozier of Cincinnati, before the Senate Banking and Currency Committee - 1913
"This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President Wilson signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized....the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill."-- Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. , 1913
"We have, in this country, one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board. This evil institution has impoverished the people of the United States and has practically bankrupted our government. It has done this through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it".-- Congressman Louis T. McFadden in 1932 (Rep. Pa)
"The Federal Reserve banks are one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen. There is not a man within the sound of my voice who does not know that this nation is run by the International bankers-- Congressman Louis T. McFadden (Rep. Pa)
"The financial system has been turned over to the Federal Reserve Board. That Board asministers the finance system by authority of a purely profiteering group. The system is Private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people's money"-- Charles A. Lindbergh Sr., 1923
"From now on, depressions will be scientifically created."-- Congressman Charles A.Lindbergh Sr. , 1913
States rights vs. Federal Constitution
License of Marriage vs. Union of Same Sex
Only when the political tide shifts to elections and seekers of public station come out to beg for their next employment, do they look towards the masses. When all other ideas, feats, fads and communications fade away, do they look towards that ‘one simple idea’ to gain the so called trust of the masses.
Odd how, when up against a wall of negativity, those clamoring for a seat upon a royal pillow will turn all this negative energy towards a group of people they think are below their social circles in nationality, sex, religion, race, origin and now, sexual orientation. The popular belief of the day will dictate which group of people will be against another group of people. It will be clan against clan or father against son with no end in sight.
So, this century will be remembered for the rights of those who love someone who is of the same biological sex than their contemporary counterparts. It has started in the lands north of us, Canada. It has begun to take shape in isolated states in our own land. In this country of ‘opportunity and freedom’, these States united with each other are now being torn apart because love, commitment and family are not recognized equally.
Food, shelter, water, clothing, medical care and education are the things we are born into and others must fight and die to achieve. Love, commitment and family are part of the human genetics. For centuries, mankind has struggled to survive. It was only achieved when humans had the love and commitment of their family to achieve and work through its struggles. This support system is something that has been inherent within every one of us.
Reality TV was an idea to gain ratings. It has done that. But, what part of this reality is real? Children are starving in our own country, the land of ‘milk and honey’ is real but you don’t see a TV show around that. Babies are born addicted to alcohol and controlled substances is real but you don’t see that either. A person’s view of the world around us is truly warped if viewed only through the median of moving pictures in a box in your living room. Yet, many people do believe what is told to them through such a median or similar medians like newspapers, videos, radio and even the internet. Truth is believed through experience and/or education. Fear can drive anyone to hate anything is scared enough to go there. Belief in such is harder to obtain when you have experienced it yourself or have been educated to understand it.
What you see and hear is not always true just because someone in the elected public says it is so. Experience it or educate yourself about is so that the fear and dread fed to you is understood and either accepted in your own mind or rejected by you. Never allow others to drive fear in your heart nor into your thoughts. Think for only yourself and each thought will gain a new presence in your being.
Sanctity of Marriage???
The following situations are all around us. You may be involved in one such relationship.
When celebrities and ‘everyday people’ marry on a whim, they have immediate rights to their spouse’s property, livelihood, and decision making in legal and healthcare situations.
Those who marry for convenience, insurance benefits, military benefits, to gain property or status with or without children are living through the so called “Sanctity of Marriage”?
When older adults marry in later life after having raised one family, they really can’t be married because they have no children to raise?
When a man and a woman marry and together decide not to have children, should they lose their rights and have the marriage annulled?
Turn the tables around for a moment. In your mind, think of the reverse situation for a moment. The world and countries living their lives as they believe are ‘justifiable’ in the eyes of the law of the land.
Now, turn the tables back to the present day in which you live. Those are the realities that are being afforded to those who are gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender in identity. Fear of the unknown and different can be enough fuel to ignite the being of contempt.
Law makers and those of political power who understand and have educated themselves to understand what same sex couples are wishing to have the same rights for their family as opposite sex couples are only going so far to accomplish this. The word “Marriage” and all the reveal that goes with that word are hard for a lot of them to fathom. Civil Unions, Certificates of Union (makes it sound like you just completed a six month program at the local community college), and any other of a half-dozen terms used to describe a lawful if not holy binding commitment between two loving individuals of the same sex do not afford this couple the same right across the states. It is good until you get to the border of the country or state or city that performed the marriage-like ceremony or, thanks to MA, a wedding/marriage. Same sex couples would have more rights and legal protection within loving couple if they had enough paperwork signed and money to complete the transaction. How romantic is that? Opposite sex couples can marry in any country or state and have protection for themselves and their spouses without question. Be it a quick trip to a Vegas drive-thru wedding chapel or a half-a-million dollar ceremony and celebration with friends and family.
Jonas Barrett Read
What exactly does the Federal Reserve do? (if possible Iwould like the answer from a political official)
Who controls it? (We know that it is not government run nor overheaded by its rulings)
Why has it been that no other canidate other than Ron Paul said anything about the fact that the government does not control the Federal Reserve or its ability to control the economy?
I don't agree with everything Ron Paul says and I'm an Obama voter 100% but just some things I have noticed.
I wrote what I think is a compelling post earlier, but I labeled it more than slightly intemperately. I used the "pimping out" phrase as a conscious homage to the mini - storm when an MSNBC host used it to describe Chelsea Clinton's campaigning. I'm not going to change the title - it is what I wanted to say then, and I do think that calling out a slepping infant for political points pretty much meets the connotation of pimping someone in the sense of shamelessly using them for your own gain. Anyways, it would be dishonest to retreat now. But I do want to take another look at Gov. Palin's assertion she would be an "advocate" for people with special needs - or at least some of them.
Initially, I'm not sure anyone is well served by high profile advocates whose only known qualification is the biological fact of having a child with special needs. I know that some parents are falling all over themselves at the idea of having "someone like them" in office. Personally, though, I have seen zero indication that Gov. Palin actually knows what the issues she will face as a parent of a DS child are, much less any grasp of the needs of people accross the special needs spectrum. Without that knowledge, power can often become a way of multiplying ignorance rather than enlightenment.
In fact, her own words show a pretty low level of knowledge about the people with special needs she claims to want to help:
"To the families of special-needs children all across this country, I have a message: For years, you sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters. I pledge to you that if we are elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House."
There are at least three problems with that statement. First, many people with special needs object to the phrasing she uses. These aren't special-needs kids, or Down Syndrom kids, or autistic kids - they are kids with special needs, kids with Down Syndrome or kids with autism. That might seem like a little thing, but people centered language is one of the key issues to advocates in this area, as it grants people with developmental disabilities the same sort of basic dignity you would confer on any one else. They are, after all, kids first, and any condition they've been diagnosed with comes second.
Second, its technically the people with special needs, regardless of age, who need an advocate, not the parents. Parents are tremendous fighters for their kids, but they aren't looking for something for themselves. Rather, what they want is a better present and future for their kids. At the end of the day, it is the child or adult with special needs who should be the focus of any government attention, rather than making them supporting players in their own struggles. Again, putting the family over the child or adult suggests that they are somehow not people first.
Third, children with special needs do eventually become adults with special needs. They don't stop having needs or needing advocates, though. To the extent they can, they often advocate for themselves, but they need assistance at 22 (and 33, and 44) every bit as much as they do at 2. Arguably, even more so, since by that age many of them will no longer have parents around to help them in their struggles and the world tends to be far less generous to adults with behavioral or developmental problems than it is to children.
I really don't know what to think about the narrow nature of this statement. Is it a reflection of ignorance, or does she really think children are the only people at issue here? Maybe her speech writer Mike Scully just doesn't have a clue how to discuss the issue? No matter the reason, the implications of this cramped understanding of the issue bothers me.
Assuming for the moment that her whole focus is children with special needs, that doesn't suggest she'll be a good advocate for that community, either. I don't doubt her commitment as a mother. I'm sure she will fight for her kid tenaciously, as virtually all parents do, and parents of kids with special needs almost universally have to in order to get a fair shake in a world that still doesn't like to acknowledge that a person with special needs is a person first. I also don't doubt, given her willingness to be so open about his condition (unlike so many other issues she has been questioned on) she will raise the profile of Down Syndrome. However, I doubt the ability of anyone in a McCain administration to effectively advocate for the needs of special needs children, much less the special needs community as a whole. Doing so would require a wholesale reversal of fundamental tenets of the GOP, central policy goals of the McCain campaign and McCain's own words.
Initially, the GOP is known as the party of "small government" and "states rights." Ignoring the areas in which this isn't true (defense, social restrictions, etc.), a typical GOP approach will make advocacy for folks with special needs at a federal level pretty pointless. Right now, states are the primary aid deliverers for special needs people, not the Federal Government. The states get matching funds under Medicaid, but they have to commit to the initial funding levels. As a result, whether you get services at all, how quickly and at what level, is a local issue, not a national one. Some states can and do offer 40 hours a week of therapy for most kids with autism in their state, but may have nothing for kids with other developmental disabilities. Indiana has a 8+ year long waiting list for core services for children with autism, despite having dedicated funds for that category of person. Moreover, once people hit 18 ("age out" in the parlance of the system) the availability of the services they had as children is subjected to a different set of factors and calculations, oftentimes resulting in significant alterations in the level of care provided. Barring a complete reversal of the core Republican belief system, I can't see how a McCain adminsitration could ensure a level playing field for all people with special needs.
Owing to the lack of any universal provision of services, one of the things people in the special needs community, especially parents, are constantly fighting against are threats to their insurance coverage. Insurance companies consider most developmental disabilities "pre-existing conditions" and unless there's a state mandate in place, won't cover people with conditions like autism or Down syndrome at all. They are in business to get more from you in premiums than they pay out in care, after all, and that just doesn't happen when you are dealing with people with special needs. When companies do cover these conditions - typically because they are forced to by state law - the key therapies that help children and young people with these conditions often aren't covered, or only at a level that isn't effective according to prevailing research. The one way I know of right now to get decent coverage is if you are lucky enough to work for a company with good benefits, where the cost drain of your kid averages out with everyone else.
John McCain's central healthcare reform would make this harder, not easier. He wants to tax company insurance benefits to encourage people to seek individual plans. By comparison there is a tax credit if you give up your employer credit and buy your own, a blanket number that is about half the current cost for a "typical" person. The stated rationale for this plan is that it will eventually lower costs for people by increasing competition in the private market. If all people were equally attractive to insure, true competition might occur. However, there will be no incentive for companies to compete to cover people who are less than desirable to insurance companies as clients, at least not without charging them much more. While Elizabeth Edwards has pointed out the general problems with this model for people with pre-existing conditions, the problems for people with special needs are arguably more acute. I have yet to meet anyone from an insurance company that wants to cover, much less compete to cover, children or adults with special needs. There is no mandate in McCain's plan to force companies to cover everyone or some kind of Federal alternative. Instead, he wants states to create last gasp coverage plans like they have for high risk drivers. There doesn't seem to be any good model for these systems, or any one blueprint that states would be expected to follow. At best, a lot of people with special needs who don't get Medicaid funded services right now would wind up confronting a system just as crazy-quilted and inconsistent as the people who do have such services. At worst, people will die from inadequate care and lack of access to services. It really is that simple and horrifying.
McCain's educational policy is also troubling for people with special needs. While he does claim to support fully funding IDEA (the statute that is supposed to fund special ed in America) that hasn't happened in the entire time the law's been on the books. Republicans seem to always find a way to cut, rather than enhance, special ed funding at a Federal level. Because IDEA isn't fully funded, the services public schools legally have to provide for students with special needs often come out of general funds. Given this fact and the budgetary pressures schools are currently under, schools will push to limit special ed costs whenever to they can - which is just about any time a parent doesn't insist on the services legally required. Coupling that with his advocacy for vouchers and "school choice" creates a truly scary scenario. While he hasn't actually proposed to fund vouchers anywhere but in DC (because after all that would be "fiscally irresponsbile"), if such a plan were to become widespread it would likely mean that special education funding would be crippled further. That's because private schools typically won't take kids with behavioral problems or who need special assistance in accessing the curriculum - i.e., children with special needs. While there are schools geared towards these kids, most parents just can't afford them with or without vouchers. So in most cases there would be a higher concentration of kids with special needs in public schools with fewer funds to pay for them. Vouchers are an idealogical tenet of the GOP, and again I see no reason Gov. Palin would or could change that.
While John McCain just lambasted the failures of Washington, there's no indication the way No Child Left Behind treats kids with special needs is one of those failiures in his book. Because the system is geared towards rewarding school mandatory test scores and not looking at progress generally, schools are under pressure to boost their averages. Right now, they can and do try to excuse children with special needs from taking the tests, typically under a claim the child can't fully access the curriculum. However, if a child is thus excluded from a mandatory test, in many states the child cannot graduate from high school (they get a certificate of attendance, not a diploma), even if they otherwise have passed required subjects. That, in turn, bars the child from most higher education programs, including both college and vocational schools. Limiting the career options of people with special needs to protect a test average is hardly in keeping with the core belief underlying NCLB that we need to enhance educational opportunities. Again, though, the GOP has resisted calls to move away from the all or nothing test model, and I have no confidence in McCain to suddenly change the one thing Republicans have succeeded as selling to many people as a domestic success in the last decade.
Finally, there is one critical area of advocacy for people with special needs, primarily adults, where proposed Federal assistance would really help. Unfortunately, John McCain is personally and unequivocally on record as opposing that assistance. For a long time, getting state services with the highest level of care meant a person with special needs had to be placed in what are called State Operated Developmental Centers. For example, children would become wards of the state, taken from their families and placed in these centers where they would stay for the rest of their lives unless the family or the adult person with special needs chose to forego the care. I can only imagine the gut wrenching choice it had to be for parents to put minor children in these settings, and for adults to have to stay there.
SODCs were the state of the art in their time, based on prevailing understanding of the capacities of people with special needs. However, their time has generally passed, as our society has become much more aware of the potential of such people to be vibrant, full members of the communities they live in. SODCs are not the type of setting most people would ever want to live if they had another choice. Residents typically live in dormitory type settings, with severe restictions on their privacy and the personal goods they can have. Since Medicaid limits the income they can have, this only enhances the limitations on creature comforts. They eat in mess hall/cafeteria settings with limited input into their dietary intake. They have lockdown at night for security reasons and the grounds are typically fenced and patrolled. While family can certainly visit, they are not typically allowed to stay overnight. Residents also typically don't have individual caregivers, but rather are collectively assisted by a rotating staff. That, in turn, limits the ability of any person to individually go anywhere off grounds, because the institution can't spare staff to make sure they get back. Imagine, for example, being an adult who just wants to go across the street to a convenience store and buy a snack for yourself, and being told you can't because you can only run errands when a group goes on an outing. For that matter, imagine being someone with an average or above average intelligence, as many people with special needs are, and being told you can't walk to the end of your street, much less take a bus to a job or meet a friend for lunch. If this sounds a little like prison to you, imagine how it feels for the residents.
There is supposed to be a training element to SODCs, too, but it typically isn't focused on life skills that would help someone live in a community setting or have what most of us would consider a "real job." Rather, in many cases the institution will run what is known as a "sheltered workshop," where menial tasks are done day after day. These are things like stuffing envelopes for mass mailings, or putting together piecework under private contracts. While it is work, and something to do, it hardly expands the minds of the residents or challenges them. The residents do get paid, by the way - but not even the minimum wage. Again, not exactly what most people would choose. But the states argued for years that the residents had no choice - they either had to accept residential services or get nothing at all.
This practice of a one sized fits all model with no provision for choice by the individual was struck down by the Supreme Court in the Olmstead case several years ago. As a result, in theory states are supposed to have to place a person in a setting of their choice, so long as it costs the same or less than placing them in the facility would. Some states create a pool of money and let the person use it as they and their case manager feel best fits the person's needs. Others have contracted to provide enough group homes that they have managed to shut all their SODCs. Still others, though, are just beginning the process of creating transition plans and beginning to create a full spectrum of choices. Sadly, many states lacking the political will to do anything have had to be harried along by lawsuits to even make partial progress.
Just as sad has been the lack of assistance to states by the Federal government in carrying out this transition. While the ADA mandates that people with disabilities and special needs be given reasonable accomadations and treated in the manner that creates the least intrusive environment, there has been no funding to back this up and really give states a push in the right direction. Tom Harkin, the primary author of the ADA, has sought to rectify this. In a bill called the Community Choice Act, he, joined by Sens. Obama, Spector, and about 20 others, lay out provisions to enhance Medicaid funding for community based settings (to get for folks out of both SODCs and Medicaid funded nursing homes), create funding for state pilot programs and otherwise provide the foundation so that maybe, just maybe, the life a person with special needs can live and the basic dignity they can have won't be tied to their state of residence.
John McCain, who did help pass the ADA 18 years ago, is on record as opposing this bill. He was asked about it by a self advocate in one of his town halls and was less than pleasant in rejecting it. He offered no reason for his opposition at the time. On July 26 of this year, despite suggestions from staff that he had come around on this issue of basic dignity, he took the opportunity on the 18th anniversary of the ADA to again reject the bill.
The reason? Cost.
Never mind the savings in shutting down out of date institutions. Never mind the cost in lost productivity and wages people with special needs could help generate for our economy. Without any meaningful analysis of the full ramifications of the situation, he simply rejected the idea of federal money being spent in this manner as too costly.
This is an amazingly callous view, given McCain's oft repeated story of his own confinement. He has movingly described how the loss of his freedom drove him to the very brink of despair and thoughts of suicide. Yet he apparently has no compassion for the toll similar restrictions and confinements impose on people with special needs every day. It is said a society is judged by how it treats the least powerful of its members. In John McCain's view of America, the cost of treating people with special needs with basic dignity and respect costs too much. Given that view, and the fact that he has repeated his position in the face of fervant advocacy by people with special needs, I don't see how the mere fact that Gov. Palin is the parent of a child with special needs can make her or a McCain Administration the sort of advocate people with special needs deserve.
Military persons must get their votes to their local voting place (hometown) before the election. If military persons do not have a ballot 180 days before the election, they should send in a FEDERAL ABSENTEE BALLOT. . This ballot may be sent in BEFORE the official ballot. You must send the FEDERAL ABSENTEE BALLOT in in case the official ballot comes late - after the deadline. Once the official ballot comes, it must be mailed in also. Only one ballot will count (official ballot preferred).
Do not wait and see. Get that FEDERAL ABSENTEE BALLOT and send it in to your hometown elections office. You must, of course, be a registered voter.
Friends and family may send you a FEDERAL ABSENTEE BALLOT.
On the web, the Federal Voting Assistance website can give you more information.
If you are still having problems, contact the Obama Headquarters (regardless of whom you are voting for) or contact me at this site or vragg@hotmail.com
We want your military vote to count. To count, your vote must be on time.
...
WASHINGTON — Two government reports have uncovered millions of dollars in federal contracts that were supposed to go to small businesses but instead were awarded to companies that had not qualified or had obtained the contracts fraudulently.
In one report, the inspector general for the Interior Department found that contracts listed as going to small businesses went to a dozen Fortune 500 corporations, including the Xerox Corporation and the John Deere Company.
The report, based on a sampling of the department’s small business contract awards in fiscal years 2006 and 2007, uncovered no fraud but found that large businesses received the contracts because of data entry errors, incorrect data and failure by contracting officials to verify the actual size of the business.
The report also said that in several cases, corporations appeared to have misrepresented themselves as small businesses on the federal contractor data base.
Xerox and John Deere said they were moving to correct those errors, and Senator John F. Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who heads the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, called for all federal agencies to audit their small business contracting practices.
The second report, by the Government Accountability Office, found that numerous private firms had tapped into the Small Business Administration’s set-aside program for small businesses in economically distressed areas by falsely claiming they were located in a Historically Underutilized Business Zone, or HUBZone.
Ten randomly selected companies in the Washington area, according to the agency, had set up virtual offices or rented mail boxes in poor communities solely to obtain a HUBZone business address. Over two years, those companies and others won more than $100 million in HUBZone contracts, according to the report presented to the House Committee on Small Business last week.
“You have to wonder about a system that lets individuals self-qualify for a program of this size,” said Nydia M. Velazquez, the New York Democrat who heads the committee.
“A marketing unit of Deere had correctly listed the number of employees in that small business unit on a government form, and this number has been used by government agencies to define the entire Deere enterprise as a small business,” said Ken Golden, a company spokesman.
The Interior Department report also found that contracting officers “failed to consistently check” the central contractors registry to determine the company’s true size.
A spokesman for Xerox, William McKee, said the company’s review of the central registry revealed “several errors where business size was entered incorrectly” from such agents, and said the company was going to correct the mistaken data.
“Xerox is not a small business, and has never attempted to portray itself as one,” he said................................Read more next page
Carole: This is not new that SBA is not working in the interest of small businesses. President Bush has cut their budget. It is not the first time, the NY Times has written about the fraud in government contracts. I have contacted John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, etc. to express my concerns to no avail. I myself have worked many years with the Small Business Administration and was the onlty certified woman-owned business and Hubzone in NY and NJ area in my industry as I was told. I never was able to secured a hubzone or Federal contracts for many years. I finally had to close the business and have lost all including all our personal investments.
Since then, I have read Free Lunch. David Cay really explained the obstacles the unconnected are going through in the US to build a legitimate business. If any of you have a chance please read the following books:
Jacked: How "Conservatives" Are Picking Your Pocket (Whether You Voted for Them or Not) [ILLUSTRATED] (Paperback)
by Nomi Prins (Author)
I have recently heard many calling for the temporary or permanent repeal of the state and federal gas tax. John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Jill Long Thompson have all announced proposals to suspend the tax. Clinton has offered a "wind-fall" tax on the oil companies to cover the lost revenue while others have not announced any plan to cover the cut in revenues. Sure the savings would be nice to see when we are firting with four dollar a gallon gas prices, but what would the real price ultimately be to Hoosiers? Lost jobs, further eroding of infrastructure, and no new transportation projects any time soon.
Senator Obama has the correct thinking on this subject, we should not suspend the tax without concrete (no pun intended) solutions to fund the needed revenue. Any windfall tax would have to be signed by Bush and that would be a long shot at best and getting two thirds of congress, in its current form, to agree to override it would be akin to walking on water.
So what to do about high gas prices? We could ask Saudi Arabia to open up the valve a little more. We could actually allow the Iraqi oil to reach the market. We could encourage all the Hummer, Escalade and Suburban... (et al) drivers to buy smaller, more efficient vehicles. We could ask, on top of the wind fall tax on domestic oil companies that should be imposed anyways, that our own refineries operate a little closer to full capacity than 85 percent (after all the price of gas is a supply and demand issue isn't it). We could drive less. We could actually elect people who would consider mass transit as a viable solution to congestion, parking, smog and ozone problems.
Ultimately what would we save if the tax was repealed? We're talking about 18.4 cents a gallon from the federal and the six or seven percent plus .01 fee per gallon for inspection fees (souce indianagasprices.com). But compared to what, crumbling bridges, deteriorating roads as well as all the well paying highway and bridge construction jobs that would fly out the window as we drive by.
Obama is correct and he should explain his position clearly to the American people because we can understand it in these terms. Hillary Clinton once said while campaigning for the Senate seat she now holds that (paraphrasing) "the gas tax is one that we get back almost dollar for dollar and it would be silly to suspend it." It's true, we do get our greatest return on our tax dollars from the gas tax and we should be looking to other solutions for gas price relief.
-Jeff Corbin
P.S. Maybe we should also look to get away from human consumables as sources for ethanol and look at possibly "switch grass" like alternatives to try to control the rising price of food also.
The feds are going to monitor the PA primary in Philadelphia tomorrow to insure compliance with federal voting rights laws.
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/04/21/justice_dept_to_monitor_pa_primary/3002/
In a an ongoing series of blog posts I have just started to write, I am exploring each of Obama's issue papers to ask critical questions which affect my final voting decision for November.
I just read Obama's issue paper on Katrina and rebuilding the gulf coast protections against storms. Many of his points I agree with, such that the Federal government has a role in the recovery and protection of the region and its residents. But I see this role as restricted to management and execution of the macro level of the wetlands restoration and the flood control systems, and proper funds and resources for disaster relief that are still owed. I see the disaster as as opportunity for the US and the local government to shine in solving the problems that have historically plagued the area. I do see that the oil companies need to contribute in equal form to the efforts to match any degradation their operations have contributed to the region, but no more.
What is lacking in the paper is addressing one of the most critical components, local government. The City of New Orleans is historically notoriously known for mis-management by the Mayor and his organization, not only before Katrina, but afterwards as well. I highly recommend an article I found, which I think is spot on, especially the last sentence.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_4_new_orleans.html
"But only New Orleans, and Louisiana, can build a city that holds up day after day."
This last sentence points directly at what is missing from Obama's position and I would like to see integrated, local responsibility. Drugs plague the country, especially crack and meth use, and in New Orleans have had devastating effect on both pre and post Katrina. The violence and murder rate in the city is closely tied to drug events on the street, which in turn have a domino effect on the community and recovery progress.
I want the next President to meet directly as with the Mayor to intimately discuss what the local government needs to do to solve its problems, because the local government is still failing in its responsibility. To me, it means many things, including a ramp up on police activity, clamping down with zero tolerance on drug distribution and use, violent crime, patrols and most importantly community involvement in the activity.
The ultimate solution for New Orleans is learning about and becoming self sufficienct in all aspects of its local government and community operations. The ultimate and sustainable answers must come from within the New Orleans community. It is not the responsibility of the Federal Government to cleanup the area at a local infrastructure and social level.
These are the things I want to see changed in America.
First off. Every American should familiarize themselves with the US Constitution. Reading it...especially the first 7 articles and the Bill Of Rights. Also read the 16th amendment. The Federal Income Tax is illegal and unconstitutional. All taxes have to be apportioned to be constitutional. The Federal Income Tax is unapportioned and it also was not ratified by the required amount of states. So that is the first thing I would like to see changed. Abolish the Federal Income Tax because it is illegal.
2nd is the big one. Abolish the Federal Reserve. Everybody should learn as much as they can about the Federal Reserve and how it works. First off....its a bank. It is not part of the Federal Government. It is not regulated by the US Government. The Federal Reserve is responsible for all of the depressions and 3/4 of the wars fought during the 20th century. It is also responsible for people being squeezed financially everyday just to pay for the cost to live. The Federal Reserve loans the money it manufactures to the US Government at interest. This is why we have a 9 Trillion dollar defecit. The last President to stand up to the Federal Reserve was John F. Kennedy. We all know what happened to him. On June 4th 1963 John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order 11110 that would basically strip the Federal Reserve to loan money to the US Government at interest and gave the US Treasury the power to make money directly....like how it was originally setup when the Unites States was created. Almost 6 months later JFK was assassinated and the Executive Order was stopped. If these 2 things are removed from our country then we will all live better lives. The United States will once again be the way it was originally setup to be.
I recommend everybody that reads this to watch the movie Zeitgeist.
Also please check out these sites.
http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/thefederalreserve.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Constitution
http://www.truthusa.org/articles/fed/fedtruth2004.htm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3286459385978771924
http://zeitgeistmovie.com/
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331
I hope Barack Obama will be the President that does these 2 things. Also I would like to see Mr. Obama to declassify and also open up independent investigations into 9-11. As we all know their are way too many questions that do not have answers regarding 9-11. I believe that 9-11 was just another false flag operation that the rich and powerful people behind our government have been doing since World War 1. We need change and we needed it yesterday. If Mr. Obama cannot bring this change to OUR government then we will have to do it ourselves as the People. Remember WE are the powerful...NOT the politicians. The people of this country have the power to change the government at will....without holding elections if the people feel the government is corrupt or not serving the interests of the people.
BOSTON GLOBE: Soldiers warned not to forward bogus chain e-mail using military computers
STARS AND STRIPES: Military says not to forward e-mail about Barack Obama
